Teaching in Physical Education: A Year-long Action Research in Sport Education.

Texto

(1)Teaching in Physical Education: A Year-long Action Research in Sport Education. Cláudio Filipe Guerreiro Farias. Orientadora Isabel Mesquita, PhD Co-orientador Peter Hastie, PhD. Dissertação apresentada com vista à obtenção do grau de Doutor no âmbito do curso de Doutoramento em Ciência do Desporto, organizado pelo Centro de Investigação e Inovação em Desporto (CIFI2D), da Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto, nos termos do Decreto-Lei nº 74/2006 de 24 de Março.. Porto, 2016.

(2) Farias, C. (2016). Teaching in Physical Education: A Year-long Action Research in Sport Education. Porto: C. Farias. Dissertação de Doutoramento em Ciência do Desporto apresentada à Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto. KEY-WORDS: SPORT EDUCATION, ACTION-RESEARCH, FACILITATOR, STUDENT-COACHES, TEAM SPORTS.. II.

(3) Acknowledgements. This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) / POPH / QREN / European Social Fund [grant number SFRH / BD / 87866 / 2012]..

(4) . .

(5) . Dedicatória À minha companheira, à minha melhor amiga, por seres quem és.... . V.

(6) . .

(7) . Dedicatória Para a minha princesinha linda, o teu sorriso torna toda a montanha escalável…. . VII.

(8) . .

(9) . What is to give light must endure burning... Viktor Frankl. . IX.

(10) . .

(11) . Akcnowledgements O ingresso e substanciação deste processo de doutoramento constitui indubitavelmente um dos passos mais marcantes do calcorrear da minha vida pessoal e profissional. Para tal realização concorreram um elevado grau de exigência, empenho, perseverança e honestidade. Tal processo não foi passível de se concretizar sem a colaboração, incentivo, amizade e partilha por parte de muitas das pessoas que me rodeiam e tão importantes são na minha vida e percursos. Deixo uma palavra de gratidão aos muitos que deram de si na contribuição para este trabalho. Aos amigos e colegas da Faculdade um forte abraço de gratidão: ao Ruben Gomes, ao Rui Araújo, à Patrícia Coutinho, ao Alexandre Medeiros, ao José Afonso, à Cristiana Pereira, à Mariana Cunha, ao Tiago Sousa, à Patrícia Gomes. Aos amigos e colegas da escola, obrigado pelas cedências, compreensão e contribuição: à Paula Granja, ao Paulo Martinho, ao Óscar Teixeira, à Marta Moura, à Teresa, ao Carlos Gomes, ao Edison Carlos, ao Miguel Forte. À Maria João e ao Artur, obrigado por me abrirem as portas da vossa ‘casa’ e possibilitarem o concretizar deste projeto. Aos colegas do Futebol, Rui Vieira e César Gonçalo. Aos grandes amigos Ana, Miguel, e Gustavo, pela amizade, ajuda com as tecnologias, formatação e entrevistas, e pelos bons momentos de escape. Aos Professores, um bem-haja e um muito obrigado: à professora Paula Batista, um obrigado pela oportunidade concedida para crescer no gabinete;. . XI.

(12) . ao Professor Amândio Graça, um grande abraço pela enorme disponibilidade, ensinamentos, e espírito terreno disponibilizados; to. Professor Peter Hastie, a very special ‘thank you’, for the partnership,. friendship, and indelible teaching and support; à Professora Isabel Mesquita, por ser tão mais que uma orientadora... um agradecimento sentido pela sabedoria, compreensão, ensinamentos, presença e disponibilidade total e por ser quem mais amparou o meu ganhar de asas para poder sonhar, crescer e sentir-me com as competências necessárias para partir à aventura pelo meu próprio pé... À minha família, sem vocês não teria conseguido. Um beijo à minha mãe, por me ensinar o que é a perseverança e a capacidade de lutar. Uma gratidão eterna aos meus novos mãe e pai; à Etelvina e ao Humberto. Aos meus novos irmãos; Lígia, Pedro e Ana...obrigado por compensarem os longos momentos ausentes do crescer da minha filha; por a ajudarem a brotar e a ser quem está a ser... Aos tios Lígia e Miro e primas, Bea, Sarita, Inês e Ura, por estarem lá sempre que precisámos. E porque tão ou mais importante que a embarcação que segue o caminho que tem que seguir é o porto que o abriga...à Filipa...este trabalho é tanto teu como meu...sem ti, não teria sido possível...pelo teu sacrificio durantes anos a fio, esforço, presença, carinho...OBRIGADO minha companheira.. . XII.

(13) . Index. Index of Figures........................................................................................... XV. Index of Tables…………………………………………………………………... XVII. Resumo ....................................................................................................... XIX. Abstract ...................................................................................................... XXI. List of abbreviations................................................................................... XXIII. I. Introduction............................................................................................... 1. II. Theoretical Review ................................................................................. 29. III. Empirical Studies .................................................................................. 77. Empirical Study 1 Game Performance and Understanding Within a Hybrid Sport Education Season…………………………………………………………………………….. 79 Empirical Study 2 Towards a More Equitable and Inclusive Learning Environment in Sport Education: Results of an Action Research based Intervention…………….... 119. Empirical Study 3 Scaffolding student-coaches’ instructional leadership in Sport Education: A yearlong action-research intervention………………………………………. 147 Empirical Study 4 Tactical learning through peer-led instruction: Results of a year-long action research project in Sport Education…………………………………..... 189. IV. Final Considerations............................................................................. 229. XIII.

(14) . .

(15) . Index of Figures. Empirical Study 1 Figure 1 - The Season Plan............................................................. 88. Figure 2 - Description of the Coding Categories for Decision Making and Skill execution……………………………………………………... XV. 99.

(16) . .

(17) . Index of tables. Introduction Table 1- Summary table of the studies included in this thesis………. 19. Empirical Study 1 Table 1 - Game Performance……………………………………………. 104. Table 2 - Game Understanding………………………………………….. 106. Table 3 - Correlations Between Game Performance and Game Understanding……………………………………………………………... 107. Empirical Study 3 Table 1 - Year-long Syllabus: Elements of the Tactical Approach to Content Development……………………………………………………. Table 2. 161. - Year-long Syllabus of the Teacher’s Scaffolding. Processes………………………………………………………………….. 163 Empirical Study 4 Table 1 - Year-long Syllabus: Elements of the teacher’s mediation of coaches’ instruction and Tactical Content Development…………... XVII. 199.

(18) . .

(19) . Resumo O objetivo central desta dissertação foi o de conduzir uma investigação ação de carácter interventivo no sentido de examinar o ensino e a aprendizagem em quatro temporadas consecutivas do modelo de Educação Desportiva. Foram igualmente examinadas as estratégias de mediação empregues pelo professor para o desenvolvimento nos estudantes-treinadores de uma liderança positiva e inclusiva, e a capacidade de conduzir interações instrucionais conducentes ao envolvimento ativo dos colegas de equipa em processos de resolução de problemas e construção da aprendizagem. Foi utilizada uma metodologia de investigação ação sustentada num protocolo prolongado de recolha de dados pelo seu potencial epistemológico de ombrear com a natureza inconstante e dinâmica. imperante. nas. dinâmicas. relacionais,. na. instrução,. e. no. desenvolvimento do conhecimento no modelo de Educação Desportiva. A evolução do processo de ensino-aprendizagem foi captado através observação de vídeos das aulas, um diário de campo, e entrevistas de grupo. A aplicação de. protocolos. de. preparação. dos. estudantes-treinadores. permitiu. o. desenvolvimento da aprendizagem através do ensino de pares. A utilização proactiva das estruturas pedagógicas do modelo viabilizaram a promoção de um contexto de aprendizagem mais equitativo. Os estudantes-treinadores envolveram ativamente os colegas em processos de análise e descobertaguiada essencialmente a partir da temporada três, o que coincidiu com o desenvolvimento generalizado de conhecimento tático mais elaborado e capacidade de jogo mais adaptativa. O desenho longitudinal e o agrupamento temático dos conteúdos abordados viabilizou a transferência de conhecimento ao longo das unidades. A investigação ação foi determinante por permitir o ajustamento contingente e continuado das estratégias de mediação aos progressos. Similarmente, possibilitou o remodelar das interações sociais entre os alunos através do revisitar e reflexão sobre inclusão e equidade. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: INVESTIGAÇÃO. MODELO. AÇÃO,. DE. FACILITADOR,. DESPORTOS COLETIVOS. XIX. EDUCAÇÃO. DESPORTIVA,. ESTUDANTES-TREINADORES,.

(20) . .

(21) . Abstract The central purpose of this dissertation was to conduct an in-depth year-long action research intervention for examining teaching and learning in four consecutive seasons of Sport Education. The specific objectives comprised the examination of the mediation strategies used by the teacher for developing the student-coaches’ positive and inclusive leadership and ability to conduct instructional interactions that involved teammates actively in problem-solving processes and construction of the learning experience. An action research design sustained by a longitudinal data collection protocol was used for its epistemological potential to cope with the shifting and on-going engaging nature of the relational dynamics and instructional and knowledge development in Sport Education. Cyclical and intertwined data collection and analysis employing video observations, a field diary, and group interviews were used to analyse the changeable development of the teaching-learning process. This dissertation showed that the application of protocols for coaching preparation enabled the development of learning outcomes through peer-led instruction. The proactive building of inclusion upon the pedagogical structures of Sport Education helped promoting a more equitable learning context. The studentcoaches’ ability to actively involve teammates in analysis and discovery-based processes were noticed essentially from the third season onwards, which overlapped with students’ development of higher-order tactical content and more adaptive game-play. The longitudinal design along with the thematic grouping of games enabled the transfer of knowledge across seasons. The action research design was critical for allowing the continuous and contingent (re)adjustment of the teacher’s mediation strategies to the on-going progresses. It also made viable the re-shaping of social interactions between learners through repeated revisit of and reflection on their ideas of inclusion and equity.. KEY-WORDS: SPORT EDUCATION, ACTION-RESEARCH, FACILITATOR, STUDENT-COACHES, TEAM SPORTS.. XXI.

(22) . .

(23) . List of Abbreviations. ALT-PE – Academic Learning time in PE FD – Field diary FG – Focus group FK – “The Fighting Koalas” K – “The Kangaroos” LO – Lesson observation LS – Leadership seminars PE – Physical Education PETE – PE teacher education PSTs – Study of pre-service teachers’ RD – Reflective diary SE – Sport Education model SOFIT – System for observing Fitness Instruction time TGfU – Teaching games for understanding WE – “The Wild Eagles”. XXIII .

(24) . .

(25) . I. Introduction. .

(26) . .

(27) Introduction. . 1.1 Rationale From teacher-centred to student-centred approaches for teaching and learning Physical Education The teaching and learning of games and team sports has long been a central concern in Physical Education settings across the globe (Tannehill, van der Mars, & MacPhail, 2013). The reason game-centred activities are so attractive to students lies in its dynamic nature that constantly poses challenges, demands exploratory action and decision making, and assigns meaning to performance for being directly tied to students’ situational interests (Griffin & Sheehy, 2004). Further, playing games allows “fuelling enjoyment” while also providing students a forum where to “be active, socialize, and work with and against friends and classmates” (Smith & St. Pierre, 2009, p. 216). For much of the 20th century, the traditional instructional approaches (e.g., Direct instruction model) based on teacher-centred behavioural models for motor skill acquisition (Siedentop & Rushall, 1972) have formed the dominant curriculum view for the teaching and learning of games and sports in Physical Education (Gubacs-Collins, 2015). Typical teacher-centred approaches include direct and explicit instruction (i.e., learning generates from a teachertransmission/student-acquisition process; Rosenshine, 1983), step-by-step learning progression of movement patterns through isolated skill-drills (i.e., a typical lesson structure comprises “warm up, skill learning and game-play” mirroring the formal version of the sports; Ward & Griggs, 2011, p. 500), well structured and closely monitored tasks, and the role of the “teacher as instructional leader” (Metzler, 2000, p. 168) (i.e., the teacher is the source of nearly all of the decisions made on instruction and content development, class management, and student engagement patterns). A multi-activity format of curriculum (i.e., students experience different sports and activities within short units of 6 to 10 lessons approximately) is frequently associated to teachercentred approaches with the intention of providing young people with. . 3.

(28) Introduction. opportunities to find potential attractive activities among those offered (Hastie & Mesquita, 2016). Some benefits and disadvantages have been concurrently recognized to traditional Physical Education classes. As main advantages, the (i) isolated skilldrills afford students high levels of rote repetition of movement patterns and (ii) positive and high rates of corrective feedback by the teachers (Hastie, Calderón, Palao, & Ortega, 2011; Metzler, 2000); and the practice time is maximized as (iii) no time is spent to teach students functions other than those related with the motor tasks (e.g., managerial responsibilities), and (iv) the ‘trial and error’ progression and ‘discovery’ process is eliminated from the learning experience (Rink & Hall, 2008). As potential shortcomings, it is argued that the neglect of understanding tactics and strategies as a critical means to develop high order cognitive processes and the decontextualized, repetitive, and rote-learning of skills isolated from the movement–information coupling of the game, often lead to players’ inability to fit skill performance to contextual game circumstances (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout, 2005; Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997; Launder, 2001; Musch et al., 2002). The “lack of authenticity” stemming from the presentation to students of activities absent of the rituals, values and traditions of sports associated with the sport culture within which students had been socialized (Siedentop, 1994, p. 7) was in some cases found conducive to unintended low levels of student commitment, intensity of engagement, and enthusiasm (Perlman, 2010).. Moreover, the ‘teacher-. centeredness’ of processes has been associated to minimal levels of student autonomy, perceptions of competency and relatedness (Hastie, 2012). In responding to calls from a contemporary society demanding for development of autonomous thinkers and critical consumers of the social and cultural world (Kirk, 2010), a constructivist. ‘student-centred’ perspective of. curriculum development has come to be increasingly espoused by numerous educational policies, national curricula and teacher education programs (Tannehill et al., 2013). Within a constructivist perspective, learning is taken in reference to a cognitively, socially and self-regulated active construction of. . 4.

(29) Introduction. knowledge by learners 1 (Cobb, 1994). In the particular field of Physical Education, owing to the central role of teaching and learning of games and team sports, shape was given to constructivism through the rise of what Ennis (2014, p. 1) calls “second generation” instructional models for teaching games and sports that build on strong statements of democratic and student-centred practice (Hastie & Mesquita, 2016). The Teaching Games for Understanding approach (TGfU)(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) and the Sport Education model (Siedentop 1994) have taken a prominent place as the two most well-known (and researched) of these game-centred approaches that assign learners a central role in the construction of their own learning experiences (Dyson, Griffin, & Hastie, 2004). The case of Sport Education: conceptual roots and educational goals The Sport Education model in particular has been highly recognized for its pedagogical structures that concur to an integrated and multidimensional achievement of social, cognitive, and psychomotor goals (Dyson et al., 2004; Metzler, 2000). Indeed, although Siedentop (2002) acknowledged the critical value of teaching students skills and strategies, and that such goal should be maintained at the very hearth of curriculum interests, he also contended that Physical Education should not be reduce to it. In agreement, Sport Education aims at a more holistic education of students through the development of “players in the fullest sense and to help them develop as competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspersons” (Siedentop, 1994, p. 4). Due to its roots “in sport and play” (Siedentop, 2002, p. 415), the competent sportsperson is one who understands the flow of a game, knows the tactics the team is trying to execute, and is capable of intelligent coupling of movement technique and tactical components in the game context (Launder, 2001). The literate sportsperson understands and is knowledgeable about the rules, traditions, and values associated with specific sports, and can also distinguish between good 1 . A core assertion in constructivism is that students actively construct knowledge through integrating new ideas with their own thinking, past experiences and knowledge (Palincsar, 1998). Students are expected to be active, social, and creative learners. As active learners, students are actively engaged in learning activities and instructional interactions that stimulate decision-making, critical thinking, and problem solving. As social learners, students construct knowledge through social interaction with their peers, facilitated by their teachers. As creative learners, students are guided to discover knowledge and to create their own understanding of the subject matter (Perkins, 1999). . 5.

(30) Introduction. and poor sport practices. The enthusiastic sportsperson behaves in ways that preserves, protects, and enhances the sport culture toward construction of an improved collective social life (Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2011). In order to achieve these foundational educational goals, Sport Education includes a particular set of structural characteristics framed to provide students the “authenticity of experience” envisioned by Siedentop (1994, p. 3). Specifically, the model incorporates six key features (seasons, affiliation, formal competition, records, culminating events, festivity) drawn to link the learning of games and team sports with the authentic form of sport within the larger culture (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998). Further, the recasting of traditional teacher-led learning activities into team-training sessions and regular competition matches also convey a sense of authentic and meaningful participation to students. More to it, due to the participation and inclusive conceptual underpinnings of Sport Education, students are given opportunities to “engage in the community of practice of sport as legitimate peripheral participants in a variety of roles” other than that of players, such as coaches, referees, trainers, scorekeepers, and managers or sports director (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998, p. 383). The learners’ trajectories to full participation in the life of their teams are additionally facilitated by student engagement in practice within small-sided games modified in ways that match the developmental ability of students and offer appropriate format of competitions (Penney, Clarke, & Kinchin, 2002). Along with authenticity and inclusiveness, a further distinctive and challenging (both for teachers and students) structure of Sport Education refers to the fact that students take substantial control and ownership for their own learning. Indeed, due to the role-playing feature (e.g., coaches, sport directors, etc.) and students’ affiliation in persistent team membership, nearly all learning in Sport Education progresses within student-led cooperative activities in the format of team-practice sessions. In this format of instructional interactions, the role of the teacher as a facilitator2 is critical in Sport Education. Frequently, during the early parts of a 2. There are some indispensable requisites of a facilitator highlighted in the literature on constructivist-oriented teaching practices: (i) facilitating the learning process by engaging students in initiating, finding, and solving problems; (ii) promoting students’ conceptual understanding by linking new information to students’ emerging relevance and by. . 6.

(31) Introduction. season, the teacher provides direct instruction and guided practice to introduce new tasks to the whole class to which follows student independent practice in their home spaces (Siedentop et al., 2011). While at an early stage there is sharing of the instructional responsibility between the teachers and the students in the role of team leaders or coaches, as students gain experience with the instructional approach, the teams are set responsible for preparing themselves for the championship and culminating event (Metzler, 2000). During this process, the teacher is called to scaffold 3 a gradual shift of significant instructional responsibility from the teacher to the student-coaches (Dyson et al., 2004). Examples of such instructional responsibility allocated to the student-coaches are their leadership in content development of the tactics, strategies, and techniques necessary to respond to problems limiting their teams’ game-play. The coaches become responsible for conducting most of tasks presentations and instructional interactions for teammates’ knowledge and performance development. One further expectation is that coaches along with the class ‘ethics committee’ can nurture a healthy climate through positive leadership. The coaches are in the leadership of setting the pace to positive power relations, inclusion, and equity in teammates’ participation in relevant decision-making and game practice (Harvey, Kirk, & O’Donovan, 2014).. The investigation in Sport Education: the achievements From the early large-scale trials of Sport Education within several national Physical Education curricula (Alexander, Taggart, & Thorpe, 1996; Grant, 1992) to the present day, there has been a considerable proliferation of this curriculum approach among practitioners and researchers in several countries (Hastie, 2012). Indeed, the executive summary of the data-based research on Sport Education conducted over the past two decades (including over 80 empirical studies) points to a strong trend of success in facilitating the development of integrating content and process skills; (ii) guiding students to resolve their misconceptions by discussing and sharing ideas with students; and (iv) demonstrating excellent knowledge of the subject matter (Chen, Burry-Stock, & Rovegno, 2000). 3 The metaphor of ‘scaffolding’ as instructional support has emerged to explain the role a teacher or a more knowledgeable peer can play in joint problem-solving activities with and among students. Scaffolding can be conceptualized as a temporary pedagogical structure that Smit, van Eerde, and Bakker (2013, p. 817) suggest can “help pupils to perform a task they cannot complete by themselves and that is intended to bring pupils gradually to a state of competence in which they can complete a similar task or process independently.” . . 7.

(32) Introduction. competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons (Araújo, Mesquita, & Hastie, 2014; Harvey et al., 2014; Hastie, Martinez de Ojeda, & Calderón, 2011); Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). Specifically, the research centred on competency development showed evidence of students’ improvements in isolated motor skills (e.g., Browne, Carlson, & Hastie, 2004; Hastie et al., 2013; Hastie & Trost, 2002; Pereira et al., 2015), game-play skill execution (Araújo et al., 2015; Cho et al., 2012; Hastie, Sinelnikov, & Guarino, 2009; Pritchard et al., 2008) and decision-making (Araújo et al., 2015; Hastie et al., 2009; Mahedero et al., 2015; Pritchard et al., 2008), and knowledge development related with declarative and procedural knowledge (Browne et al., 2004; Hastie et al., 2013; Mahedero et al., 2015; Pritchard et al., 2008), and the solving of tactical quizzes (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006) and video-based game problems (Farias, Mesquita, & Hastie, 2015; Hastie et al., 2009). The research on inclusion, equity, and values supports the aspirations of Sport Education to literacy development (Harvey et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). In the main, the students appreciated the value of inclusion (e.g., Clarke & Quill, 2003; Kinchin, 2001; Kinchin et al., 2004), a positive impact was found in the integration of students who were usually discriminated. against. (empathy). and. the. development. of. leadership. responsibility and students’ teamwork (assertiveness) (e.g., García-López & Gutiérrez, 2015), the lower skilled students did not feel marginalise within their teams and believed that they had equal opportunities for improvement (e.g., Hastie, 1998a), and students of both genders and skill levels were observed being actively engaged in motor tasks for the majority of the lesson time (Hastie & Sinelnikov, 2006). The students expressed high commitment to the principles of Sport Education (e.g., Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Bennet & Hastie, 1997; Hastie, 1998b, 2000; Hastie & Buchanan, 2000), development of fair-play (Hastie & Sharpe, 1999; Vidoni & Ward, 2009), and sense of social justice (e.g., Kinchin & O’Sullivan, 2003). With regard to enthusiasm, there is evidence of a robust contribution of Sport Education to social recognition and social affiliation goals (e.g., Méndez-. . 8.

(33) Introduction. Giménez et al., 2015; Parker & Curtner-Smith, 2014; Wallhead, Garn, & Vidoni, 2013, 2014), increased self-competence perceptions and commitment toward participation in the class activities (e.g., Sinelnikok, Hastie, & Prusack, 2007; Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004), high levels of intrinsic motivation (e.g., CurtnerSmith, Hastie, & Kinchin, 2008; Spittle & Byrne, 2009), and positive effects in enjoyment and self-determined participation in leisure-time physical activity (e.g., Wallhead et al., 2013; Wallhead, Hagger, & Smith, 2010). The aspects most commonly evoked by the researchers to justify the abovementioned outcomes include features such as the augmented enthusiasm generated by the affiliation and teamwork features of the model (e.g., Alexander & Luckman, 2001, Sinelnikov, Hastie, & Prusak, 2007), the motivational climate created by the reconfiguration of the concept of winning and by the masteryfocus of the activities centred on self-achievement (e.g., Perlman, 2012; Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004), the accountability built-in in content developmnet itself that fosters strong commitment to the learning activities (Hastie, 2000; Pereira et al., 2015), the opportunity granted to students for developing knowledge from observations and judgements made during daily competition and playing roles (e.g., Hastie et al., 2009; Pritchard et al., 2008), and the meaning and cultural relevance added to the structure of the content by students’ curriculum ownership (e.g., Hastie, 1998a; Farias et al., 2015). Unsolved issues and future directions for research Despite the positive trend found in the ability of Sport Education to facilitate students’ plural achievement of educational outcomes, there are also some reports from research showing less positive outcomes. Firstly, while some studies found a general lack of skill improvement (Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Mahedero et al., 2015; Pritchard et al., 2008) there are also other studies where only part of the participants improved in game-play decision-making and skill execution (e.g., Hastie, 1998a; Mesquita, Farias, & Hastie, 2012). Secondly, some studies reported a gender stereotype socialisation with boys dominating power roles and managerial decision-making (Hastie, 1998b), there was prevalence of hegemonic masculinity (i.e., more physically able and aggressive. . 9.

(34) Introduction. boys dominated those who were smaller, less physically gifted and timid) (Parker & Curtner-Smith, 2012), and the voices of some students (i.e., girls and less popular students) were silenced with their participation in the activities being negatively influenced by gender and social status (Brock, Rovegno, & Oliver, 2009). To date, the research on Sport Education has not yet been capable to provide relevant and explicit information to practitioners and researchers on possible ways to help solving several of these problems. In part, we argue, this may be due to the predominant design in most research, which is largely based on pre-posttest quantitative measures of the impact of Sport Education in different variables. A further bulk of research is of exploratory nature and it has been centred on exploring students’ and teachers’ perceptions mainly through questionnaires, or transversal and post-experience interviews made to students and teachers (Araújo et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). Although far from the intention of undermining the high merit of such research, as it has gathered valuable knowledge on the impact of Sport Education on students’ outcomes (e.g., learning, social, motivational, etc.), it should be noted, nonetheless, that the type of inferences drawn from these studies need to be viewed in perspective. This is because conclusions have been drawn predominantly in the absence of an examination of the internal pedagogical practices operating during Sport Education, and thus are lacking in an interpretative perspective of the outcomes (Hastie & Mesquita, 2016). In other words, there is a pervasive dearth of research examining the teachinglearning process in Sport Education, and by consequence, little is known of what, why, and how particular elements in the model may be restraining or enabling students’ outcomes achievement and inclusiveness (Araújo et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). In line with such concerns, in their recent review of research on Sport Education, Araújo et al. (2014) speculated that the inconsistencies found in performance and knowledge development within Sport Education are very likely a consequence of lacks in the student-coaches’ leadership skills, content knowledge and instructional skills. However, despite the significant responsibility. . 10.

(35) Introduction. assigned to student-coaches in Sport Education for the conduct of the learning activities, and the insistent calls from research for a thorough investigation of the instructional interactions that manifest within the specific context of peerteaching tasks, there remains a void of research that has examined the effect of peer-teaching on student content development during Sport Education (Araújo et al. 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). In fact, to the present day only one study has examined the student-coaches’ instructional skills and content knowledge and how this affected students’ learning achievement (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2007). This study showed that while competent when the learning content involved low-order tactics, the gaps found in the coach’s domain-specific content and pedagogical knowledge resulted in the ineffective development of their teammates’ content knowledge and performance of high order tag rugby content.. While a limitation of this study was that it drew. conclusions from students’ participation in on single season of Sport Education, these authors also stressed the need for teachers to apply more effective coaching preparation to student-coaches. In agreement, such lack of examination of the teachers’ mediation processes was also heavily highlighted in the reviews of research conducted in Sport Education (Araújo et al. 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). There are strong indications that teachers may not be preparing effectively the instructional and relational leadership of student-coaches, most likely due to a misinterpretation of their role as facilitators (Goodyear & Dudley, 2015). As a case in point, the evidence from research in general education centred on peer-assisted learning activities showed it was only possible to promote high order cognitive4 and performance5 outcomes within peer-teaching interactions through specific training of the students leading the peerinteractions (e.g., learning of instructional strategies such as question-asking) (Ward & Lee, 2005). As Goodyear and Dudley (2015) point out, a danger arises 4. Within Bloom et al.’s (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, low order cognitive processes include knowledge (recall previously learned information), comprehension (grasp the meaning of information), and application (use information in new and concrete applications). The high order cognitive processes include analysis (break down material into its components and understand relationships between pieces of information), synthesis (put elements into a whole through abstract connections), and evaluation (judge the value of the material with defensible arguments). 5 The tactical approaches to instruction on team sports consider more complex tactical principles such as using, creating or defending space as high order content (e.g., Griffin et al., 1997).. . 11.

(36) Introduction. when teachers in student-centred approaches view themselves merely as a guide on the side (Metzler, 2000). This may inadvertently lead the teachers to remove themselves from the teaching-learning process due to limited understanding of how to interact with learners in the role of facilitator. Indeed, the role of the teacher in student-centred approaches is particularly demanding as it calls for the use of versatile and responsive styles of instruction to scaffold students’ construction of autonomy (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). Despite the critical role of the teacher and student-coaches in Sport Education for the promotion of student learning and social outcomes, the examination of the processes used by teachers to mediate the student-coaches’ instructional interactions and presentation of the learning tasks as been completely neglected by research. To date, there is nearly no empirical-based information that offers researchers and practitioners a deepen understanding of the effects of the instructional interactions in Sport Education. More importantly, there is still a pronounced scarcity of research that explicitly informs teachers and researchers on how instructional and peer-teaching mediation processes can be effectively developed within such challenging pedagogical framework: one that ‘relinquishes’ significant responsibility to learners in the conduct of learning activities while simultaneously expects for student development of high order cognitive and performance outcomes (Siedentop et al., 2011). Due to the acknowledgement that the role of the teachers in studentcentred approaches involves hard-laborious processes that require superior pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., requires domain-specific knowledge, the use of direct and indirect instruction, and knowledge of mediation processes to sustain effective peers-led instructional interaction) (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Farias et al., 2015), there has been a recent resurgence of action research in the investigation on student-centred approaches (Casey & Dyson, 2009; Gubacs-Collins, 2007). Indeed, the cyclical, on-going, self-critical, and iterative nature of action research was found essential for teachers’ self-study of their practice. In such research, the action research design enabled the teachers-researchers’ access to in-depth understanding of the effects of their actions on learning and educational outcomes. Concurrently, Penney, Clarke,. . 12.

(37) Introduction. and Kinchin (2002) have also urged researchers of Sport Education to use designs that reflect an epistemology capable of keeping pace with the dynamic, situated, and on-going engaging process of teaching and learning within the model. Indeed, the use of action research would be particularly useful for the study of the teachers’ mediation processes, the student-coaches’ conduct of instructional interactions, and the implications of the processes used in learning achievement (Casey & Dyson, 2009; Gubacs-Collins, 2007). In fact, with action research, more than a sole in-depth examination and description of the teaching-learning process, it is also possible to make an actual intervention upon the process to improve teaching and learning while students are still living their Sport Education experience (Carr & Kemmis, 2003). This is because action research allows for continuous (re)adjustment of the strategies used to mediate the instructional interactions between students by building upon ongoing evidence of their progress. Such on-going testing of explanations in practice is conducive to improved understanding of practice and learning (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009). However, regardless of the benefits that action research would potentially offer to deepen knowledge on the Sport Education phenomena, to the present day, not one single action research study has been conducted on Sport Education (Araújo et al. 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). As underlined previously, a second line of inconsistencies found in some research refers to the lack of inclusiveness, equity, and the difficulty encountered for developing students’ self-determined cooperative behaviours (Harvey et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). Indeed, some studies described the pervasiveness in Sport Education classes of deeply rooted stereotyped sporting conceptions and negative cultural influences of community-based sports brought by students into the gym that were particularly difficult to ‘deconstruct’ (e.g., Brock et al., 2009; Hastie, 1998b). It was found that certain ‘forces’ such as hegemonic masculinity and sexism-based biases, manifested both by teachers and students, exerted a negative influence in equity and inclusion achievement (e.g., Brock et al., 2009; Parker & CurtnerSmith, 2012). In these cases, the pedagogical structures of Sport Educational,. . 13.

(38) Introduction. by itself, did not suffice to correct, overcome and modify such stereotypical styles. Congruent with such unresolved issues, the reviews of research on Sport Education have cautioned about the persistent void of research examining the way teachers are conducting the processes of devolution of power to the coaches (e.g., develop role proficiency, positive leadership, and equity in power roles) (Araújo et al. 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). It was also suggested that research needs to move beyond mere qualitative descriptive or evaluative research designs in order to gain in-depth access to the relational and instructional dynamics operating during peer interactions. Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) suggested that the use of more sophisticated research designs such as case studies and ethnography using longitudinal data collection protocols have the potential to better address these issues. As advocated by Penney et al. (2002), such designs allow to investigate a particular phenomenon within its real-life context toward reaching a deeper understanding of unique situations. Further, the longitudinal data collection also allows to establish connections between events widely separated in time in order to detect the direction, patterns and magnitude of change in the individuals (Ruspini, 1999). It is believed that student participation in more than one season consecutively over time would benefit the dynamics of the social and instructional systems occurring within working groups (teams) leading to improved relational interplays among students (Ruspini, 1999). Despite such appeals, the vast majority of research in Sport Education “has predominantly assessed student outcomes based on experience of a single unit or season of the curriculum” (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005, p. 204). Such research designs do not allow for drawing insight that might be forthcoming from prolonged student participation in Sport Education seasons. 1.2. Research problems and aims In congruence with the tenets of student-centred approaches, in Sport Education students take a central role in the construction of their own learning. . 14.

(39) Introduction. experiences. On one hand, most learning activities evolve through student faceto-face interaction in which most task presentations for knowledge and skill development take place through peer-teaching and student-led cooperative activities within team practice sessions. Further, the students are also assigned responsibility for managing the equitable participation of all team members in the activities and for nurturing a positive and inclusive climate. In order to continue to develop Sport Education, it is critical that research provide information that help practitioners solve potential issues restraining the achievement of two of Sport Education’s core educational goals: effective learning achievement and development of inclusive values. If such intent is to be accomplished, then the research needs to provide an in-depth examination of the dynamics of students’ interactions that operate during cooperative and peer-teaching activities that may restrain or provide students’ opportunities for equal participation. More importantly, in order to enhance teaching and learning, it is necessary to investigate how instructional processes can be effectively developed in Sport Education. Specifically, it is imperative to study effective ways that inform teachers’ preparation of the student-coaches for the leadership of instructional interactions and power dynamics operating in the teams. The underpinning argument in this dissertation is that the study of the processes by which coaches might conduct peers-led instruction effectively leading to positive leadership, inclusion, and teammates’ effective learning requires a combination of longitudinal data collection protocols with dynamic and flexible research methodologies such action research. Therefore, the central purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth, on-going, and year-long action research intervention for examining teaching and learning in Sport Education. In taking in reference the general aim of the study, the following specific objectives were established: 1. To examine the development of students’ game performance and understanding and relationships between the two constructs in one season of Sport Education. 2. To examine, mediate and intervene into student behaviours in order to promote a democratic, inclusive and participatory focus.. . 15.

(40) Introduction. 3. To examine the scaffolding processes used by a teacher for empowering students in the role of coaches toward becoming knowledgeable, competent, and self-assisted instructional leaders. 4. To examine the development of the student-coaches’ ability to conduct student-centred instructional interactions and to use discourse that implicates teammates. proactively. in. problem-solving. processes,. discovery. and. construction of knowledge. 5. To examine the strategies used by the teacher during an intervention designed to prepare coaches to conduct peer-led instructional interactions and learning activities conducive to tactical development. 6. To examine students’ responses in terms of the student-coaches’ conduct of the activities and teammates’ tactical development.. 1.3. Structure of the dissertation This dissertation was elaborated in accordance with the norms and regulations for the writing and presentation of dissertations of the Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto (FADEUP). An approximate configuration of the Scandinavia model was adopted. This includes a set of articles/chapters that intend to provide answer to the goals of the dissertation that simultaneously gather the necessary conditions to publication. The dissertation is comprised of one theoretical review and four empirical studies (see the summary table bellow). Chapter I comprises the introduction of the dissertation. It provides the theoretical framework and contextualizes the relevance of the present dissertation in light of the main findings of the research in the field being studied. Chapter II includes the theoretical component of the dissertation. It consists on a theoretical review based on the analysis of the research conducted on Sport Education over the past two decades. The article is entitled, “The Sport Education Model: Research update and future avenues for practice. . 16.

(41) Introduction. and investigation”. This article provides insight on what is currently known regarding students’ achievement in Sport Education. It also sheds light over the main focuses of research, the research methods more commonly utilized, and potential problematic issues. Suggestions are given of possible directions that future research and practical implementation of the model might follow. The conclusions in this study provided the theoretical basis that sustained the subsequent empirical articles included in this thesis. Chapter III refers to the empirical component of this dissertation. Four empirical studies published or submitted to international peer-review journals with impact factor. The first empirical study contained in this thesis is entitled, “Game Performance and Understanding within a Hybrid Sport Education Season”. This study functioned as a pilot study conducted during the course of this doctorate prior to the year-long action research project. This study was an answer to the high demands highlighted in literature that are requested to the teacher-asresearcher while undertaking the dual role of practitioner-researcher. Although the study was centred on a different data-base, it was critical for enhancing knowledge on Sport Education pedagogies and access a preliminary perspective of the challenges potentially associated with the role of the teacher as a facilitator in Sport Education. This was also a means upon which the teacher could start to construct his role as a teacher-researcher and to gain insight on how to cope with the nuances of such insider’s position. The second empirical study is entitled, “Towards a More Equitable and Inclusive Learning Environment in Sport Education: Results of an Action Research based Intervention”. This study refers to an intervention deliberately designed to promote a more inclusive and equitable learning environment in Sport Education. The main focus in this study was to mediate the studentcoaches’ development of positive leadership. On one hand, it served to prevent that the devolution of power from the teacher to the student-coaches would not result in an inequitable use of power by these students. On the other hand,. . 17.

(42) Introduction. through the study of the power dynamics occurring during students’ interactions, it concurrently sought the development in students in general of an enhanced awareness of the negative impact of exclusionary and stereotyped behaviours. This was a means to stimulate collective construction of team goals by students as a community of learners. The third empirical study is entitled, “Scaffolding student-coaches’ instructional leadership in Sport Education: A yearlong action-research intervention”. This study provides an examination of an intervention deliberately designed to develop coaches’ ability to conduct student-centred instructional interactions. This study allowed the integrated analysis of the processes used by the teacher to mediate the student-coaches’ instructional leadership, and the on-going progress of these students in terms of knowledge and instructional development. The engagement of student-coaches in systematic preparation protocols provided the basis for a more self-assisted conduct of peer-teaching activities. By consequence, it was also a means to safeguard the engagement of students in general in discovery-based learning and active participation in the construction of their learning experiences. The fourth and final empirical study is entitled, “Tactical learning through peer-led instruction: Results of a year-long action research project in Sport Education”. This study provides an overview of the extent to which the studentcoaches were able to conduct learning activities conducive to students’ tactical development and of the level of tactical complexity addressed throughout the learning activities. This research provided information for practice and research related with pedagogical processes that may be critical to the achievement of effective learning outcomes within the Sport Education instructional framework. Chapter IV was reserved for the final thoughts supported by the conclusions in each empirical article. The findings in each study are interpreted and combined to attempt a more comprehensive understanding of the progresses, dilemmas, and problems encountered along the development of the teaching-learning process along the year-long research.. Comments on. implications for practice and suggestions for future research are also provided.. . 18.

(43) Introduction. . The references of each chapter are presented in the end of the chapter. The references of each article are presented in the end of each study and are displayed both in the main manuscript as in the references section in conformity with the publication guidelines in the journal in which it was published or submitted. Table 1 provides a summary table of the studies included in this thesis. Chapter II Theoretical Review. Theoretical Review The Sport Education Model: Research update and future avenues for practice and investigation. Farias, C., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A.. Chapter III Empirical Study 1. Submitted: Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto (FADEUP). Empirical Studies Farias, C., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A. Game performance and understanding within a hybrid sport education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34: 363-383. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.20130149. Empirical Study 2. Farias, C., Hastie, P., & Mesquita, I. (2015). Towards a more equitable and inclusive learning environment in Sport Education: Results of an action research-based intervention. Sport, Education and Society, 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1040752.. Empirical Study 3. Scaffolding student-coaches’ instructional leadership in Sport Education: A yearlong action-research intervention. Farias, C., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A. Submitted: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.. Empirical Study 4. Tactical learning through peer-led instruction: Results of a year-long action research project in Sport Education. Farias, C., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A. Submitted: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.. Table 1 – Summary table of the studies included in this thesis.. . . 19.

(44) Introduction. References Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A. (2014). Review of the status of learning in research on sport education: Future research and practice. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 13(4), 846-858. Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., Hastie, P., & Pereira, C. (2015). Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education–step-gameapproach volleyball unit. European Physical Education Review, 22(2), 185-200. Alexander, K., & Luckman, J. (2001). Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, 7, 243-267. Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Thorpe, S. (1996). A spring in their steps? Possibilities for professional renewal through sport education in Australian schools. Sport, Education and Society, 1, 23-46. Bennet, G., & Hastie, P. (1997) A sport education curriculum model for a collegiate physical activity course, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68, 39–44. Brock, S. J., Rovegno, I., & Oliver, K. L. (2009). The influence of student status on student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(4), 355–75. Browne, T., Carlson, T., & Hastie, P. (2004). A comparison of rugby seasons presented in traditional and sport education formats. European Physical Education Review, 10, 199-214. Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. London: Routledge. Casey, A., & Dyson, B. (2009). The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research. European Physical Education Review, 15, 175-199.. . 20.

(45) Introduction. Chen, W., Burry-Stock, J. A., & Rovegno, I. (2000). Self-evaluation of expertise in teaching elementary physical education from constructivist perspectives. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1), 25-45. Cho, O., Richards, K., Blankenship, B., Smith, A., & Templin, T. (2012). Motor Skill Development of Students Enrolled in a Sport Education Volleyball Season Delivered by In-Service Physical Education Teachers. The Physical Educator, 69, 375-394. Clarke, G., & Quill, M. (2003). Researching sport education in action: a case study. European Physical Education Review, 9(3), 253–266. Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 4-12. Curtner-Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A., & Kinchin, G. D. (2008). Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society, 13(1), 97–117. Dyson, B., Griffin, L. L., & Hastie, P. A. (2004). Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest, 56, 226-240. Ennis, C. D. (2014). What goes around comes around ... or does it? Disrupting the cycle of traditional, sport-based physical education. Kinesiology Review, 3, 63-70. Farias, C., I. Mesquita, & Hastie, P. A. (2015). Game performance and understanding within a hybrid sport education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34, 363-383. García-López, L. M., & Gutiérrez, D. (2015). The effects of a sport education season on empathy and assertiveness. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(1), 1-16. Goodyear, V., & Dudley, D. (2015). I’m a Facilitator of Learning! Understanding What Teachers and Students Do Within Student-Centered Physical Education Models. Quest, 67(3), 274-289. Grant, B. C. (1992) Integrating sport into the physical education curriculum in New Zealand secondary schools. Quest, 44, 304-316.. . 21.

(46) Introduction. Gréhaigne, J. F., Wallian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning model and students' practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 255-269. Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Griffin, L.L., & Sheehy, D.A. (2004). Using the tactical games model to develop problem-solvers in physical education. In: Wright J., MacDonald, D., and Burrows, L. (eds.) Critical Inquiry and Problem-Solving in Physical Education (pp.33–48).London: Routledge. Gubacs-Collins, K. (2007). Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12, 105-126. Gubacs-Collins, K. (2015). The Socratic Gymnasium: Learning Lessons of Life Through Physical Education. The Physical Educator, 72, 76-98. Harvey, S., Kirk, D., & O'Donovan, T. M. (2014). Sport Education as a pedagogical application for ethical development in physical education and youth sport. Sport, Education and Society ,19, 1, 41-62. Hastie, P. A. (1998a). Skill and tactical development during a sport education season, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 368–379. Hastie, P. A. (1998b). The Participation and Perceptions of Girls Within a Unit of Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2), 157171. Hastie, P. (2000), An Ecological Analysis of a Sport Education Season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 355-373. Hastie, P. (2012). The nature and purpose of sport education as an educational experience. In P. Hastie (E.). Sport Education: International perspectives (pp. 3-14). London: Routledge. Hastie, P. A., & Buchanan, A. M. (2000). Teaching Responsibility Through Sport Education: Prospects of a Coalition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 1: 25-35. Hastie, P. A., Calderón, A., Palao, J., & Ortega, E. (2011). Quantity and quality of practice: Interrelationships between task organization and student skill. . 22.

(47) Introduction. level in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(4), 784-787. Hastie, P., Calderón, A., Rolim, R., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). The Development of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport Education Season of Track and Field Athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 336-344. Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid Sport Education—Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(01), 1-27. Hastie, P., & Mesquita, I. (2016). Sport-based Physical Education. In: Ennis C editor. Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. London, UK: Routledge, Hastie, P. & Sharpe, T. (1999). Effects of a Sport Education curriculum on the positive social behavior of at-risk rural adolescent boys. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4, 417–430. Hastie, P., & Sinelnikov, O. (2006). Russian students’ participation in and perceptions of a season of Sport Education. European Physical Education Review, 12, 131-150. Hastie, P. A., Sinelnikov, O., & Guarino, A. J. (2009). The development of skill and tactical competencies during a season of badminton. European Journal of Sport Science 9(3), 133-140. Hastie, P. & Trost, S. G. (2002). Student Physical Activity Levels During a Season of Sport Education. Pediatric Exercise Science 14, 64-74. Kinchin, G. D. (2001). A high skilled pupil’s experiences of sport education. The Australian Council for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 47, 3–4. Kinchin, G. D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2003). Incidences of student support for and resistance to curricular innovation in high school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 245 Kinchin, G. D., Wardle, C., Roderick, S., & Sprosen, A. (2004). A survey of year 9 boys’ perceptions of sport education in one English secondary school. Bulletin of Physical Education, 40(1), 27–40. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge.. . 23.

(48) Introduction. Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376–387. Launder, A. (2001). Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sport. Adelaide: Human Kinetics. Mahedero, M., Calderón, A., Arias, J. L. , Hastie, P., & Guarino, A. (2015). Effects of student skill level on knowledge, decision making, skill execution and game performance in a mini-volleyball sport education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(4), 626-641. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and Writing Action Research. London: SAGE. Méndez-Giménez, A., Fernández-Río, J., & Méndez-Alonso, D. (2015). Modelo de educación deportiva versus modelo tradicional: efectos en la motivación y deportividad / Sport Education Model Versus Traditional Model: Effects on Motivation and Sportsmanship . Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte vol. 15 (59), 449466. Mesquita, I., Farias, C., & Hastie, P. (2012). The impact of a hybrid sport education-invasion games competence model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European Physical Education Review, 18, 205-219. Metzler, M. W. (2000). Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. Musch, E., Mertens, B., Timmers, E., Mertens, T., Graça, A., Taborsky, F., & Vonderlynck, V. (2002). An innovative didactical invasion games model to teach basketball and handball. Paper Presented at the 7th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, Athens, Greece. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375. Parker, M. B., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2012). Sport education: a panacea for hegemonic masculinity in physical education or more of the same? Sport, Education and Society, 17(4), 479-496.. . 24.

(49) Introduction. Parker, M. B., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2014). Comparison of the Motivational Climates Created During Multi-Activity Instruction and Sport Education. The Physical Educator, 71(3), 417. Penney, D., Clarke, G., & Kinchin, G. (2002). Developing Physical Education as a "Connective Specialism": Is Sport Education the Answer? Sport, Education and Society, 7(1), 55-64. Pereira, J., Hastie, P., Araújo, R., Farias, C., Rolim, R., & Mesquita, I. (2015). A comparative study of students’ track and field technical performance in sport education and in a direct instruction approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14, 118-127. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 57, 6-11. Perlman, D. J. (2010). Change in affect and needs satisfaction for amotivated students within the sport education model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29(4), 433–45. Perlman, D. (2012). The influence of the Sport Education Model on developing autonomous instruction. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(5), 493-505. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacherstudent interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. Pritchard, T., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Metzler, J. (2008). Effects of Two Instructional Approaches on Skill Development, Knowledge, and Game Performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12, 219-236. Rink, J. E. & Hall, T. J. (2008). Research on effective teaching in elementary school physical education. The elementary School Journal, 108(3), 207218. Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. The elementary school Journal, 83(4), 335-351. Ruspini, E. (1999). Longitudinal research and the analysis of social change. Quality and Quantity, 33, 219-227.. . 25.

(50) Introduction. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: A retrospective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 409-418. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. & van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D., & Rushall, B. (1972). An operant model for skill acquisition. Quest, 17, 82–90. Sinelnikov, O., Hastie, P. A., & Prusak, K. (2007). Situational motivation in a season of sport education. ICHPER-SD Research Journal, 2(1), 43-47. Smit, J., van Eerde, H., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 817-834. Smith, M. A., & St. Pierre, P. (2009). American and English secondary students’ perceptions of enjoyment in physical education. The Physical Educator, 66, 209-221. Spittle, M., & Byrne, K. (2009). The influence of sport education on student motivation in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 253–66. Stran, M., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2009). Influence of two pre-service teachers’ value orientations on their interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society, 14(3), 339–352. Tannehill, D., van der Mars, H., & MacPhail, A. (2013). Building effective physical education programs. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Vidoni, C., & Ward, P. (2009). Effects of fair play instruction on student social skills during a middle school sport education unit. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 285–310. Wallhead, T. L., Garn, A. C., Vidoni, C., & Youngberg, C. (2013). Game play participation of amotivated students during sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32(2), 149-165. Wallhead, T. L., Garn, A. C., & Vidoni, C. (2014). Effect of a sport education program on motivation for physical education and leisure-time physical activity. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 85(4), 478-487.. . 26.

(51) Introduction. Wallhead, T.L., Hagger, M., & Smith, D.T. (2010). Sport education and extracurricular sport participation: An examination using the trans-contextual model of motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(4), 442–55. Wallhead, T.L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Effects of a sport education intervention on students’motivational responses in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23(1), 4–18. Wallhead, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2),181– 210. Wallhead, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2007). A didactic analysis of content development during the peer teaching tasks of a sport education season. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12, 225-243. Ward, G., & Griggs, G. (2011). Principles of play: A proposed framework towards a holistic overview of games in primary physical education. Education 313, 39(5), 499-516. Ward, P., & Lee, M. (2005). Peer-assisted learning in physical education: A review of theory and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 205-225.. . 27.

(52) . .

(53) . II. Theoretical Review. .

(54) . .

(55) . Theoretical Review The Sport Education Model: Research update and future avenues for practice and investigation. Cláudio Farias1, Isabel Mesquita1 and Peter. A. Hastie2 1. Centre of research, education, innovation and intervention in Sport (CIFI2D),. Faculty of Sport, University of Porto. 2. Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.. Submitted: Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto (FADEUP).. .

(56) . .

(57) Theoretical Review. . . Abstract In The Sport Education model is likely the most prominent second-generation curriculum alternatives to the often-dominant teacher-centred direct instruction approaches. The main goal of this paper was to conduct a systematized analysis of two decades of research on Sport Education in order to identify critical conceptual and methodological concerns and inform future directions for practice and research toward development of a more matured model. The scope of this essay includes a contextualization of the contemporary shift from teacher-centred to student-centred approaches for teaching Physical Education; the conceptual roots, structural features, and educational goals of Sport Education; the thematic and methodological examination of empirical research on the model; and conclusions and future avenues for research. Two main areas of intervention were identified: the need to safeguard competency development through coaching preparation protocols and in-depth examination of instructional interactions conducted by student-coaches; and the examination of, and intervention upon, the power and relational dynamics operation during peer interactions that either restrain or facilitate students’ access to more equitable and inclusive participation. It is suggested that the adoption of a transformative agenda through action research designs, ethnographic, case study, and longitudinal data collection protocols are indispensable key vehicles for enhancing the model. KEYWORDS: physical education, student-centred approaches, sport education model, research update.. INTRODUCTION The shift from a focus on ‘gymnastics and exercise’ to an approach emphasizing sports and games, represented an important milestone in the development of Physical Education (PE) curriculum at a global scale (109).. . 33.